Efficacy of GreenLight laser prostatectomy in urinary retention

Authors

  • Anastasia MacDonald
  • Moustafa Fathy
  • Parsa Nikoufar
  • Amr Hodhod
  • Ruba Abdul Hadi
  • Saud Alhelal
  • Husain Alaradi
  • Ahmed S. Zakaria
  • Walid Shahrour
  • Hazem Elmansy

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8556

Keywords:

Laser, GreenLight, Prostatectomy

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The objective of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and durability of GreenLight laser prostatectomy for the management of acute urinary retention (AUR) and chronic urinary retention (CUR) and to determine outcomes compared to patients without preoperative urinary retention (UR).

METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from individuals who underwent GreenLight laser prostatectomy at our institution from May 2018 to July 2022. Patient demographics and outcome measures were recorded, including indications for the procedure, median urinary volume drained, or median postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) before catheterization or GreenLight laser prostatectomy. CUR was defined as PVR >300 mL in males able to void and initial catheter drainage >1000 mL in males unable to void in the absence of pain. All patients had postoperative followup visits at one, three, six, and 12 months. Our evaluation included the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality-of-life (QoL) assessment, maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), PVR, and catheter-free status.

RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight males who underwent GreenLight laser prostatectomy were included in our study. The UR group consisted of 88 patients (50 AUR and 38 CUR), and the lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) group was comprised of 80 individuals. There were no statistically significant differences between the AUR and CUR subgroups regarding demographics. The UR group had a significantly higher age and a significantly higher postoperative catheterization time compared to the LUTS cohort. The CUR subgroup had a significantly higher PVR at one, three, and six months compared to the AUR subgroup, although other outcome measures were similar between the two cohorts. During three- and six-month followup visits, the UR group had a significantly higher PVR than the LUTS cohort. At 12 months postoperative, the LUTS group had a higher catheter-free rate than the UR group (p=0.001). The successful first trial of void (TOV) rate for the UR and LUTS groups were 83% and 80%, respectively. At 12-month followup, the catheter-free rate for the UR and LUTS cohorts was 87.5% and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: GreenLight laser prostatectomy is an effective and durable treatment for UR, with a high catheter-free rate and comparable outcomes when performed to manage LUTS.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2023-12-21

How to Cite

MacDonald, A., Fathy, M., Nikoufar , P., Hodhod, A., Abdul Hadi, R. ., Alhelal, S., Alaradi, H., Zakaria, A. S., Shahrour, W., & Elmansy, H. (2023). Efficacy of GreenLight laser prostatectomy in urinary retention. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 18(4), E120–6. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8556

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 4 (2024): CUAJ April

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.